I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his comments today. He always brings the experience of his residents to the Legislature here and it’s wonderful to hear those experiences. Hopefully the government side will actually listen and take some lessons from you so that they can improve their legislation.

When we’re talking about affordable housing, this government passed Bill 23, which downloads the cost of development charges onto municipal taxpayers to the tune of $5 billion, and this is being paid for—this Bill 23 is nicknamed the “building fewer homes slower” act—by municipal taxpayers through what is being deemed as the “Ford tax.” But will this $5-billion tax handout to for-profit developers actually build affordable housing for Ontarians?

I thank the member for his comments. I also heard the broad agreement to build more homes. I’ve heard that from several speakers across the aisle, which is great news, and we agree. That’s why we’re committed to building 1.5 million homes.

This is a tough task. If this was easy, it would have been done in the past and we wouldn’t have this problem. But housing, if you look at policy directives that need to happen, is up there among the toughest, in my opinion, because it requires many governments working together, industry, all sorts of different factors, and that’s why we haven’t had this problem. But we need to do it. The young generation needs it. That’s why this bill, as well as many others, will increase the housing supply. I ask the member, are he and his party willing to support this bill to get that job done?

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this august chamber on behalf of the constituents of Don Valley East and on behalf of the people of Ontario, particularly on an issue that is a crisis to so many us, and that is of course on housing.

Just earlier this morning, the member from York Centre spoke about visionary plans, but there’s nothing visionary about rewriting plans over and over and over—because, in fact, this is the third time this government has rewritten urban development policy since October 2022. So you’ll forgive me for believing that sometimes it feels like they’re just making it up as they go along. That’s not intended to be a dig at this government; it’s an expression of concern from the people of Ontario and, of course, for myself included.

When this bill was first announced, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing spoke of flexibility and boosting housing supply. Translated, what he really was saying is that he wants to be able to do whatever he wants. Madam Speaker, Ontario needs housing—we all know that—but Bill 97 fails to consider its agricultural, economic and environmental consequences, nor its consequences for tenants and for residents.

On the matter of agricultural and environmental issues, sweeping, unchecked urban sprawl is an asset to nobody, especially when this government neglects basic city services like hospitals and schools. But this government, sadly, is not interested in feedback. After all, they’re stripping away power from municipalities, the local jurisdictions who know their communities best and know how the negative consequences of Bill 97 could unfold.

Madam Speaker, the consequences may be significant. Had the government bothered to meaningfully consult with stakeholders, they would know that. Here’s one stakeholder: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, representing over 80% of Ontario’s farmers, has voiced opposition to the bill, as schedule 6 will severely reduce the already diminished amount of agricultural land in our province. This government just wants to plop multi-lot residential areas in prime rural farmland and walk away saying it built a few houses. This simply is not good enough.

This government hasn’t considered the environmental implications of what it is proposing. The changes, for example, made under schedule 6 will tear into green space and exponentially increase our carbon emissions. And without public transport, hospitals, schools, employment areas—residents will need to drive to get where they’re going, emitting even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

From an economic perspective, cities designate lands as employment lands, places for industry and economic development. This legislation circumvents these rules so that developers can build on those very lands. This will contribute to forcing new residents to commute long distances for basic services and for infrastructure, because it’s an attempt at a housing plan without an accompanying infrastructure plan. This government forgets that livable housing doesn’t just mean access to a roof and four walls. Access to a grocery store, a school, a hospital: These are all critical to the success of a community as well and are not provided under this bill.

Bill 97 also removes the rule for municipalities that stipulates they must prove the need to expand before they push their municipal urban boundaries outward. Municipalities could rezone land without requiring evidence or studies. This bill seeks to do away with the municipal comprehensive review. This is, as you know, the review every five years that municipalities undertake about lands which should be employment lands and which lands should no longer be those. The land needs assessment is also being done away with—a valuable assessment that looks at populations to determine employment lands. All of this means fewer local jobs, more commuting, more pollution.

On the topic of affordable housing—because this is not just an environmental issue or even a complete disregard towards protecting agricultural lands—this bill offers little to no substantial policies to address or promote affordable housing. For example, schedule 2 doesn’t just diminish the authority of municipalities, which is a point I will get back to, but it also opens up many avenues to avoid the development of affordable housing units and fair treatment for tenants. The new regulatory control over demolition and conversion of rental units could easily give the province the power to weaken or even eliminate rental replacement bylaws.

Rental replacement bylaws play an integral role in ensuring tenants who are forced out of their homes due to demolition or conversion are properly supported, either through financial compensation or replacement homes. In a report done by the city of Toronto which highlighted concerns of Bill 97, it stated, “From 2018 to 2022, the city approved nearly 2,500 replacement units at below-market rents (i.e., meeting the city’s definition of affordable or mid-range rents). Without the ability to regulate replacement rents, this existing stock of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households would have been lost.”

This government loves to talk about the housing crisis as though it is only an issue of lack of supply. While that certainly is one of the issues, affordable housing must be and remain a key priority. Nothing in this bill suggests that policies would be put in place to help ensure and guarantee that homebuyers are given affordable options or that tenants are protected against price gouging or given fair rights.

On my final point about the diminishment of municipal power, what seems very apparent in this bill is that this government is intent to suggest that municipalities are ill-equipped to understand and address the unique needs of their own region. It also seems to suggest that every municipality in Ontario is facing identical issues when it comes to housing, even though this is simply not true. The housing crisis looks very different in northern regions of Ontario versus more urban regions. The unique needs of each region cannot be solved by a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet this is exactly what Bill 97 is proposing by diminishing the authority of municipalities completely and giving that complete control to the ministry.

For example, changes in schedule 1 of the bill allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appoint his own inspectors necessary for the enforcement of this act. This required appealing subsection 4(4) of the Building Code Act, which once stipulated that inspectors would be appointed under part III of the Public Service of Ontario Act, the Public Service Commission in charge of appointing public servants. Their mandate is to ensure “non-partisan”—non-partisan—“recruitment and employment of public servants that PSC or its delegates appoint to employment by the crown.” Can the minister make that guarantee? Can the people of Ontario expect that of this government? If the past is any indication of the future, then the answer, unfortunately, is no. This matters, because this government has promised to build Ontarians 1.5 million homes by 2030, and they’re afraid of delivering on that. As it is, they’re behind schedule. It’s worrisome that the minister can now appoint his own inspectors who could easily be directed to fast-track the inspection process in order to expedite the number of homes built. Building homes is good; building them recklessly is not.

When I see that the minister has been given the power to “make regulations prescribing anything that is referred to in section 14” when section 14 has within it 14 major subsections, I’m concerned. In fact, it gives me flashbacks to Bill 60. As a result, a concerning pattern of unaccountability is established in this bill.

In closing, this bill would make sweeping changes to how municipalities grow. It could force 444 Ontario municipalities to grow the same way. Municipalities in northern Ontario would be subject to the same rules as municipalities in southwestern Ontario, despite having completely different needs. That is not acceptable. This is not a one-size-fits-all province, and we can’t govern like that.

For once, this government is actually being transparent. They have shown that Bill 97 is their chosen mechanism for throwing out every rule and protection meant to ensure that growth in Ontario is fiscally and environmentally responsible. Just because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a promise to deliver on for the Premier doesn’t mean he has carte blanche to get us there.

My question for the member for London North Centre is this: We know that we have to plan for incredible and wonderful growth here in Ontario. Ontario’s share of newcomers to Canada was 39% before we took office. Now, as of 2021, it is almost 50%. By 2025, by mid-decade, 60%, or 300,000 or more newcomers per year, will make Ontario home.

Is it not a moral imperative to plan for this growth and embrace the newcomers who will contribute to Ontario’s prosperity? If the member agrees that we should plan for growth and that it is a moral imperative, why will the opposition not support this bill?

Growth is absolutely a moral imperative. But do you know what is also a moral imperative? Making sure that people have protections. The NDP has suggested a number of different things. This government, if they had morals, would protect tenants. They would pass the NDP legislation that will re-establish rent control, plug vacancy decontrol to make sure that all the places that were built after November 2018 have rent control again. That would be a moral choice.

But this government has instead made a different choice. They’ve made a choice not to protect tenants. We have a number of different solutions on the table which could be passed immediately. It’s really shocking to think that this government is talking about growth. Growth without protection is unsustainable. People will be in a situation where once their lease is up, they will be subject to massive rent increases because of this government’s neglect, this government’s willful ignoring of the affordability issues that affect newcomers, that affect young people, that affect families, that affect seniors. This government has ignored people, and I think it’s deeply immoral.

Next question?

I absolutely, categorically support increased protections for tenants. It’s a little bit hypocritical to hear from the other side that they support those protections when they have, for example, done away with rent control and implemented policies that have resulted in unprecedented economic hardship for my constituents in Don Valley East.

I’m proud to stand here on behalf of those same constituents to hold this government to account, to point out that they have made life more difficult for tenants, more difficult for renters, more expensive for renters, and to point out that, unfortunately, to call these piecemeal efforts that are unclear—it’s inappropriate to do so.

I was just in St. Catharines and in the Niagara region within the last few days. I’ve heard from your constituents—who thank you for your advocacy, by the way—but who point out that housing is out of control for them, that rent is out of control for them and that this government, the present government, hasn’t done anything for them in order to make that issue go away. This bill certainly won’t.

If you care about renters, then how is it that the average rent in Toronto is $3,000? What new Canadian or young person can afford $3,000 for their rent right here in Toronto? What are we doing? You’re not protecting renters. You’re not protecting young people. You’re not protecting families in the province of Ontario when $3,000 is the average of rent here in Toronto.

My question is—in my riding in Niagara Falls, I’m hearing from residents that are facing significant rent increases because they live in units built after 2018. In some cases, they can’t afford to rent anymore. Do you think we should have rent controls for all units built in the province of Ontario?

The member for Don Valley East I’m sure is aware that there are thousands of residential tenants—families in rental accommodation—that they call home. Our government has in the past brought in measures to strengthen protections for tenants, including fines for bad landlords and measures to prevent evictions. Unfortunately, the opposition chose to vote against those measures. This time, there’s an opportunity for the member opposite to support better protections for tenants in this province once again.

My question to the member from Don Valley East: On behalf of his constituents, will he join us in supporting these enhanced protections for tenants?

We’re going to move to questions.

I thank the member for his comments. As I think about all the housing initiatives that our government is doing, I think of my own family situation where I’ve got three sons—twenties and early thirties. They don’t have the opportunity in housing that us older baby boomers have had. Back in the last millennium, when I started my first job, you could get a job and find a place to live. That math worked. For this generation, our generation of young folks and many who are coming, that math does not work. For me, that is what’s fundamental about what we’re doing. As I said in the previous question, none of this is easy. If it was easy, we wouldn’t have this problem.

Will the member join us in this goal of getting 1.5 million homes built so that those young people can find a place to stay?

Sri Varasiththi Vinaayagar Hindu Temple in Scarborough–Agincourt is an outstanding institution providing spiritual, educational and cultural guidance to many diverse generations of the Tamil and Hindu communities. Their 17th annual cultural day festivities were one such forum to showcase their work. The Sri Varasiththi Vinaayagar Hindu College students, aged four to 14, performed more than 20 cultural displays to celebrate Tamil culture and heritage. About 200 students participated in this day-long celebration. I commend the chief priest, the teachers, the clergy and the organizers for bringing together the community and passing the torch to the next generation. Scarborough–Agincourt is proud to host such a great organization.

A week later, I had the honour of participating in a sombre Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day commemoration to uphold the memory of the victims, pay tribute to the survivors and send a message to deniers that their efforts to negate the facts will not be successful. The most impressing aspect of the night was the visit to the genocide memorial wall—

Over 1.5 million Canadians are battling sight loss. An estimated 5.6 million Canadians across our country suffer from eye disease that could lead to blindness. The annual cost of vision loss in Canada is approximately $32.9 billion. Vision is vital, as it synergizes with our other senses, amplifying hearing, touch, taste and smell to enrich our perception of the world.

Madam Speaker, with great admiration and gratitude, I would like to acknowledge the visionary leadership of Senator Dr. Asha Seth, who is here today, for proposing the designation of May as the national Vision Health Month a decade ago. Dr. Seth’s tireless efforts and unwavering commitment to this cause were recently recognized in Ottawa, and her exceptional contribution.

Dr. Seth’s current focus involves promoting comprehensive eye exams for children to detect and intervene at an early age, safeguarding their future. Thank you, Dr. Seth, for your unwavering dedication and impactful contributions. Your efforts have profound impact on the lives of countless individuals, and we are grateful to your leadership. You are a true vision champion. May God keep giving you the energy to serve the community. Thank you so much.

I apologize to the member from Markham–Thornhill. It is 10:15. We need to move to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Madam Speaker, an investigation from the Hamilton Spectator recently found that over the last year a group of men have been responsible for a white nationalist vandalism campaign in Hamilton and recently emerged from the shadows to use public parks for combat training. This investigation found that they are a part of a vast global network of neo-Nazis spreading hatred against Jewish people, Black people and the LGBTQ+ community while the social media platform they call home takes no steps to stop it.

We need this government, and I call on this government, to denounce all forms of hate in our communities across this province and call and speak against the rise of white nationalism in our communities.

The Workers’ Compensation Board of 1914 represents a historic compromise between employers and workers. In a non-adversarial system, employers would be protected from lawsuits and injured workers would receive prompt benefits for as long as their disability lasted. However, beginning with the Mike Harris Conservative government, continued by the Ford government, these principles have been turned on their head, betraying at every turn workers injured or made ill on the job.

The WSIB now looks for every means to suppress claims. They call on doctors who have never met the worker to decide if an injury has taken place. They push people back to work against medical advice, resulting in further injury. They reduce supports based on phantom jobs. The Minister of Labour promises to increase wage-replacement rates but breaks his promise. They cut the cost-of-living allowance for injured workers. Then, incredibly, the government gives $1.2 billion to employers, money that injured workers and their families need and are entitled to. Now this government plans on reducing the time to appeal to one month.

These are crimes against all workers. Today, let us demand a return to the original purpose of workers’ compensation: respect and care for injured workers, and prompt benefits for as long as the disability lasts. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

I’d like to welcome, from the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, executive director Stephanie Donaldson, Jennifer McIntyre, Shane Gonsalves; and from Wilfrid Laurier University, students Adam Sutherland, Justin Doolittle and Ranjit Saini. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the pleasure of attending two events that demonstrated the great energy, character and generosity of the people of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. The first was Saturday morning at the Walk for Alzheimer’s at the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority near Inglis Falls outside Owen Sound. It was a beautiful morning, and there was a huge turnout of walkers, volunteers and supporters. This great event was organized by the Alzheimer Society of Grey-Bruce and was supported by IG Wealth Management. Amazingly, it was one of four walks they organized that day. Alzheimer Society does such important work to support those living with Alzheimer’s and dementia in our community, and it was great to see such active community support for this important work.

Next, it was off to beautiful Harrison Park in Owen Sound for the Hike for Hospice in support of Grey Bruce Hospice and Chapman House in Owen Sound. Again, there were many hikers and volunteers supporting a great organization. Grey Bruce Hospice provides comprehensive and compassionate care to residents and families in communities during their journey with life-limiting illness. Our friend former MPP Bill Murdoch received great care at the Grey Bruce Hospice before his passing last August. Thank you to all who supported the Hike for Hospice.

These two events demonstrate the great character of our great community in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, so thank you to all who were involved.

It’s my distinct pleasure to congratulate Dr. Jennifer Kagan, who was honoured with the Attorney General’s Victim Services Award of Distinction. This award recognizes the dedication and achievements of individuals and organizations working to support people who have been victimized due to crime, and to raise awareness of victims’ issues in Ontario.

From the tragic death of her daughter Keira, Dr. Kagan has been a tireless advocate for women who are victims of intimate partner violence and for children traumatized by the violence. She has called for policy and legislative change to better protect victims of domestic violence in the family courts and child protection system.

Her leadership on this important issue inspired me to introduce the Kiera’s Law motion which was unanimously passed last year. My motion shone a bright light on the need for specific education and training about intimate partner violence and coercive control for judges, justices of the peace and other legal professionals. I applaud the government for including in Bill 102 the need to enhance training for judges and JPs. It is an important first step.

To Jennifer, we thank you for not giving up and being a strong leader for so many. This battle has come with the utmost pain, but let it be known, your little girl Keira is changing the world for the better.